law

Is Donation after Circulatory Death a “Game Changer” for Heart Transplant?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, culture, disability, end-of-life, euthanasia, futility, law, medical ethics, organ donation, suicide, ventilators/life support

In 2002, I wrote a paper titled “Ethical Implications of Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation” (NHBD) and presented it at Trinity College at a medical ethics conference. At that time, brain death organ donation was well-known, but NHBD was virtually unknown to the public although it comprised about 2% of organ donations at that time.

As I wrote then:

“It is now apparent that the number of organs from people declared brain dead will never be enough to treat all patients who need new organs. ” and “doctors and ethicists have turned to a new source of organs — patients who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators and considered “hopeless”. In these patients, the ventilator is withdrawn and organs are quickly taken when cardiac death (DCD) rather than brain death is pronounced.”

Now, the term “Donation after Circulatory Death” (DCD) is used instead and means:

“Circulatory death occurs when the heart has irreversibly stopped beating and when circulation and oxygenation to the tissues irreversibly stops.” (Emphasis added)

However, with heart transplantation, the heart will be restarted as explained in a March 24, 2023 Medscape article “A ‘Game Changer’ for Heart Transplant: Donation After Circulatory Death Explained”.

In the article, Adam D. DeVore, MD, MHS is interviewed by Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH and explains how this works and why he is excited:

“Adam D. DeVore, MD, MHS: In the field of heart transplant, DCD or donation after circulatory death is really a game changer. For decades now, we’ve been doing heart transplants from donors who die or have been declared brain dead.

There’s a whole population of potential donors who have very similar neurologic injuries — they’re just not technically declared brain dead — whose organs the family would like to donate. We didn’t have a way before.”

“There are two mechanisms. The family would withdraw care. Somebody affiliated with the hospital would declare that the donor has died. There’s usually a standoff period. That is a little variable, but it’s around 5 minutes.” (All emphasis added)

and added that then:

“…There are then two ways where that heart could be resuscitated or revived, outside the body on the organ care system. Or it could remain in the body through normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), or they’ll go on cardiopulmonary bypass and re-perfuse the heart in the room, and then look at the heart and try to evaluate it before donation. The rest of that donation looks just like every other brain-dead donation.”

…I remember when we were first starting this, I was thinking of how we would explain this to potential recipients and what would this look like. It turns out that something terrible has happened, and families that want to donate organs are relatively enthusiastic and less focused on the details.” (All emphasis added)

ETHICAL CONCERNS

In another March 23, 2023 Medscape article titled “Does New Heart Transplant Method Challenge Definition of Death?, Sue Hughes, a journalist on Medscape Neurology, writes:

“The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.” (Emphasis added)

When the NRP technique was first used in the US, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

“The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.” (Emphasis added)

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California, co-author of a recent Viewpoint on the issue said that:

“There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the US definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Peled points out.

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.” (Emphasis added)

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York City, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP, stating that:

“”Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.” and “We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ms. Hughes also wrote in her article that:

“Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.”

And in the US, “348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.” And “It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD. ”

So how important is it to have strict medical ethics standards in organ donations?

In a February 9, 2023 Transplant International article titled “Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands“, it was reported that:

“Over the ten-year study period 2012–2021 59,546 patients underwent euthanasia of whom 58,912 suffered from a somatic (physical) disorder. The number of patients that underwent euthanasia for an underlying psychiatric disorder was 634 (1.1%). An estimated 10% (5955) of patients who undergo euthanasia in general are medically eligible to donate one or more organs (11).” (Emphasis added)

Organ transplants can be wonderful and lifesaving, but we must know all the facts, be able to trust our healthcare providers, and especially not allow the “slippery slope” of legalized assisted suicide/euthanasia to get any steeper.

Potentially Lethal Problems with the Uniform Determination of Death (UDDA) and Its Proposed Revision

nancyvalko brain death, law, medical ethics, organ donation, ventilators/life support

In a December, 2022 Wall Street Journal article “Doctors and Lawyers Debate Meaning of Death as Families Challenge Practices-Changing the determination of brain death potentially affects organ donation”, law and ethics Professor Thaddeus Pope stated that:

“Without brain death, most of the U.S. organ transplant system goes away,” (Emphasis added)

Ironically and on March 16, 2023, the Wilkes Journal-Patriot newspaper in North Carolina published an article “‘Clinically dead’ pastor recovering about Ryan Marlow, a father of three young children who was pronounced *“clinically deceased” and brain dead” after “a severe case of Listeriosis impacted Ryan’s neurological system, causing abscesses on his brain stem and leaving him in a deep coma” in August, 2022. 

“The hospital recorded his time of death but he remained on life support to keep his organs live before removing them since he was an organ donor.” The wife insisted on further testing and that showed he had blood flow to his brain.

According to the news article, “On Oct. 6, 2022, he awoke from a coma by indicating yes to a simple question from a therapist”,  Ryan is now home and making more progress with rehab.

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the new innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for several minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told not to worry because greater minds than mine had it all figured out.

It was years before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers to my concerns either. After more investigation, I found that my questions were valid.

I also discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery and that there were cases of “brain dead” people who lived for months or years.

In my 2021 blog “Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation“, I wrote:

“I have been writing for many years about the implications of brain death, the lesser known “donation after cardiac/circulatory death”, diagnosed brain death cases like the supposedly “impossible” prolonged survival and maturation of Jahi McMath, and the unexpected recoveries like Zack Dunlap’s.

Last August, I wrote about the World Brain Death Project and the effort to establish a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing to develop the “minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death”. (Emphasis added)

I also wrote about the current effort “to revise the (US) Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing” that could otherwise lead to a situation where ”a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused)”. (All emphasis added)”

In 2021, 107 experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, are challenging the proposed revisions to the UDDA. While they admit that they “do not necessarily agree with each other on all aspects of the brain-death debate or on fundamental ethical principles”, they do object to three aspects of the revision to:

“(1) specify the Guidelines (the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines) as the legally recognized “medical standard,” (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of “brain function,” and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy’s objection.” (All emphasis added)

These experts’ objections to those proposed revisions are that:

” (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function (a small but essential part of the brain helps control the pituitary gland and regulates many body functions) is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD (brain death) in a non-BD patient….provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose”… and “should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky.” (All emphasis added)

And these experts further state that:

“People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.”

AUTOMATED ORGAN DONOR REFERRAL

In the January 2023 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) document “Actions to strengthen the U.S. organ donation and transplant system” has several suggestions such as:

“Seek authorization for the OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) to collect or receive data on ICU deaths for patients under age 70 for faster and more accurate monitoring of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance”

and

“The OPTN will continue to advocate for a national investment in the automation of donor referral” that “would ensure every
potential donor is referred every time. Every hospital with the ability to ventilate patients would need to participate, a requirement that is beyond the authority of UNOS or the OPTN. Automated donor referral would be a significant innovation. Our nation has the technology to automate this important step, but it will not occur without a national commitment.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Many years ago, I served on a hospital ethics committee when a doctor complained that he could not arrange an organ transplantation from an elderly woman in a coma caused by a stroke because she “failed” one of the hospital’s mandated tests for brain death. He said he felt like he was “burying two good kidneys”.

Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have degenerated to the point where euthanasia by organ donation is legally allowed.

Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of organs and tissues. Years ago, I volunteered to donate a kidney to a friend and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant.

But I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one because I believe that standard organ donor cards give too little information for truly informed consent. Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin and bones that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us, especially when it comes to organ donation. We need to demand transparency and accurate information for truly informed consent as well as conscience rights because good medical ethics are the foundation of a trustworthy healthcare system.

A New Medically Assisted Suicide Organization Arises

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, end-of-life, hospice, law, medical ethics, nursing, palliative care

In my June, 2016 blog “Tolerating Evil” at , I wrote:

“(A) few days after California’s new assisted suicide law took effect,  one doctor immediately opened up a dedicated assisted suicide clinic in San Francisco.

Dr. Lonnie Shavelson, 64 and a long-time supporter of physician-assisted suicide, was an emergency room doctor for 29 year and then spend 7 years at an Oakland clinic for immigrants and refugees before taking a 2 year break.

His new assisted suicide business could be quite lucrative. Although Medicare will not pay for assisted suicide costs, Shavelson says he will charge $200 for an initial patient evaluation. If the patient is deemed qualified under California law, Shavelson said he would charge another $1800 for more visits, evaluations and legal forms. (Emphasis added)

Shavelson defends his business by claiming that “..the demand (for assisted suicide) is so high, that the only compassionate thing to do would be to bring it above ground and regulate it.”

Now, a new medical group called American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying  has been formed with a Board of Directors and Advisors and chaired by the same Dr. Lonnie Shavelson.

The board of this organization includes a Nursing Coordinator, Director of End-of-Life Doula Education, a Volunteer Systems Advisor, as well as Hospice and Palliative Care Advisors including chaplains, nurses and social workers. There is also an “Aid in Dying Ethics Consultation Service”, ethicist, lawyer and pharmacists. An Investigations and Data Collection group is also included as well as State Liaisons in various states.

Also included is Resident Training and Education, Patient Liaisons and Volunteers, Chaplains and End-of-Life  Spiritual Advisors, a legal advisor/ethicist, and a member of the San Francisco/Marin Medical Society with a Master’s in Public Health degree.

The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid along with the older Death with Dignity organization just had their second conference February 17-18 in Portland Oregon and provided “13 continuing education units for doctors and nurses” and 10 for social workers.

The conference included presentations like “ Some Myths about Aid in Dying”, “State Differences — Present and Future Legal Considerations”, “Hospices and Aid in Dying — A land of many journeys”, “Prognostic Dilemmas in Aid in Dying”, “Medical Aid in Dying for ALS: Navigating Complexities from Prognosis to Ingestion” and “Clinician Attendance on the Aid-in-Dying day — Doctors, nurses, volunteers, end-of-life doulas, hospice staff” and “Socially-Challenging Settings and Circumstances — homeless and impoverished; family conflicts; skilled nursing and long-term care facilities” and “Medically Challenging Cases: Complex gut function; Self-administration by oral, rectal, PEG and ostomy routes” presented by Dr. Shavelson himself. (All emphasis added)

The first National Clinicians Conference on Medical Aid in Dying occurred in 2020 at UC Berkley in California. It was sponsored   by groups like UC Davis Health,  Mission Hospice and Home Care, the San Francisco Marin Medical Society and the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado that promotes “Research at the Intersection of Bioethics and Policy for Persons with Disability” (emphasis added) among other groups.

Apparently, Compassion and Choice  now has some competition in the relentless campaign to legalize and normalize medically assisted suicide in every US state.

COMPASSION AND CHOICES

Now, Compassion and Choices has a new “Federal Advocacy and Policy-Bringing the voice of the terminally ill to Capitol Hill“ that:

“advances federal legislation and regulatory change focused on:

  • Strengthening and expanding the full spectrum of end-of-life care such as advance care planning, hospice care, and palliative care, while protecting end-of-life options and patient autonomy from federal efforts to weaken or overturn federal and state laws.
  • Addressing disparities in end-of-life care for historically disadvantaged populations and advancing healthcare equity at life’s end.
  • Expanding professional end-of-life care education, training and development for all healthcare professionals.
  • Preventing healthcare entities from disregarding patient values and preferences by refusing care due to their ethical directives and policy-based restrictions. (All emphasis added)”

Compassion and Choices strongly opposes the “Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act (ASFRA) (seeking repeal)” that:

“Prohibits the use of federal funds to provide or pay for any healthcare item or service or health benefit coverage for the purpose of causing, or assisting to cause, the death of any individual.” as well as “Seeking to permanently vacate the proposed rule, “Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights In Health Care (83 FR 3880),” from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which attempted to allow medical providers expanded exemptions from critical healthcare services beyond what the law currently allows.”

Compassion also supports effort to “Establish Comprehensive Telehealth Reform” and also ominously, the Palliative Care and Hospice Education Act (PCHETA)

CONCLUSION

In 2018, I wrote the blog “Beware the New Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act” (PCHETA)” about Senate Bill 693. 

A similar bill had already passed in the House and this Senate bill was also expected.

As I wrote then:

“As an RN with decades of nursing experience in hospice, oncology (cancer) and critical care, I have been involved with many end-of-life situations. I am an enthusiastic supporter of ethical palliative and hospice care which is indeed wonderful for patients of any age and their families.

Unfortunately, there is a growing trend towards calling unethical practices ‘palliative’ or ‘hospice’ care.”

And we certainly should not be allocating federal dollars for this.

But, despite the enormous push for the PCHETA, it never passed.

There was great opposition by American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the National Association of Pro-life Nurses  , Sara Buscher, a retired attorney and CPA on the board of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition – USA. who advocates for the elderly and disabled , the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (HALO) and others.

Now, Compassion and Choices is working hard again to get PCHETA passed to “ increase the number of faculty at accredited healthcare programs” and “promote increased education and research in Palliative Care and Hospice care.” (All emphasis added)

If groups promoting medically assisted suicide throughout the US are successful in taking over the ethics education of our health care professionals, eliminating conscience rights for healthcare providers and institutions, continue to dismantle so-called legal safeguards called “obstacles” and allow the same poor oversight and documentation found in Oregon, the first state to legalize assisted suicide, we will see the inevitable and inexorable expansion of medically assisted suicide  that we are now seeing in Canada.

We need to demand the highest ethical standards in healthcare to protect ourselves, our healthcare institutions and the most vulnerable among us who need hope and help-not medically assisted suicide.

 

 

Alzheimer’s Association Ends Agreement with Compassion and Choices

nancyvalko advance directives, Alzheimer's, assisted suicide, dementia, end-of-life, law, Living wills, medical ethics, nursing, palliative care, terminal/palliative sedation, VSED

I was surprised to recently learn that the Alzheimer’s Association had entered into an agreement with Compassion and Choices to “provide information and resources about Alzheimer’s disease”.

Thankfully, the Alzheimer’s Association has now terminated that relationship as of January 29, 2023, stating that:

“In an effort to provide information and resources about Alzheimer’s disease, the Alzheimer’s Association entered into an agreement to provide education and awareness information to Compassion & Choices, but failed to do appropriate due diligence. Their values are inconsistent with those of the Association.

We deeply regret our mistake, have begun the termination of the relationship, and apologize to all of the families we support who were hurt or disappointed. Additionally, we are reviewing our process for all agreements including those that are focused on the sharing of educational information.

As a patient advocacy group and evidence-based organization, the Alzheimer’s Association stands behind people living with Alzheimer’s, their care partners and their health care providers as they navigate treatment and care choices throughout the continuum of the disease. Research supports a palliative care approach as the highest quality of end-of-life care for individuals with advanced dementia.” (All emphasis added)

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND COMPASSION AND CHOICES’ RESPONSE

While countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized assisted suicide for Alzheimer’s, no US state allows this-yet.

In the meantime, Compassion and Choices is the well-funded organization promoting medically assisted suicide laws and VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking) for people in states without assisted suicide laws.

Now, Compassion and Choices has a whole section  on their website titled  “Dementia End-of-Life Care- Identifying your preferences before dementia takes hold” stating that:

“One in two older adults die with Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia” and that ”60% of Americans with dementia receive non beneficial burdensome medical interventions.”

Thus, Compassion and Choices insists that:

“Every mentally capable adult has the right to document their desire to decline medical treatments. In the early stages of dementia, patients may also choose to voluntarily stop eating and drinking. To learn more, go to the Compassion & Choices‘ Dementia Values & Priorities Tool and other resources.” (Emphasis added)

IS VSED REALLY AN EASY WAY TO DIE?

As I wrote in my 2018 blog “Good News/Bad News about Alzheimer’s”:

“Although media articles portray VSED as a gentle, peaceful death, a 2018 Palliative Practice Pointers article in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society  titled “Voluntary Stopping Eating and Drinking” states:

“VSED is an intense process fraught with new sources of somatic and emotional suffering for individuals and their caregivers…The most common symptoms encountered after starting VSED are extreme thirst, hunger, dysuria (painful urination due to concentrated urine NV), progressive disability, delirium, and somnolence.” (Emphasis added)

Most chillingly, the authors state:

 “Because an individual with delirium may forget his or her intention and ask for drinks of water, caregivers will struggle with the need to remind the incapacitated individual of his or her own wishes. This possibility should be anticipated and discussed with the individual in advance. While reminding the individual of his or her prior intentions may feel like coercion, acquiescing to requests for water will prolong the dying process for someone who has clearly articulated the desire to hasten death.” (Emphasis added)

The authors also state that if the patient’s suffering becomes severe, “proportionate palliative sedation and admission to inpatient hospice should be considered”. This is not the so-called peaceful death at home within two weeks that people envision with VSED.

Lastly, on the legal requirement of a cause on the death certificate, the authors state:

“the clinician may consider including dehydration secondary to the principle illness that caused the individual’s intractable suffering. Although VSED is a self–willed death (as stopping life support might also be), use of the word “suicide” on death certificates in this context is discouraged because in incorrectly suggests that the decision for VSED stemmed from mental illness rather than intolerable suffering.” (Emphasis added)

So, like physician assisted suicide, the real cause of death is basically falsified with the rationale that the deliberate stopping of eating and drinking to hasten death is just another legal withdrawal of treatment decision like a feeding tube.

And as I wrote in my 2020 blog “Caring for an Elderly Relative who Wants to Die”, a doctor trying to help his grandfather who did not have a terminal illness but rather was “dying of old age, frailty, and more than anything else, isolation and meaninglessness” found that just voluntarily stopping food and water (VSED) was too difficult and he had to use “morphine and lorazepam” during the “12 long days for his grandfather to finally die.”.

The lessons this doctor said he learned were that:

“despite many problems with physician-assisted dying (physician-assisted suicide), it may provide the most holistic relief possible for people who are not immediately dying, but rather are done living.”

And

“stopping eating and drinking is largely impossible without knowledgeable family members and dedicated hospice care.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Years ago, my mother told me that she never wanted to be a burden on her family.

I never told my children that-especially when they were teenagers and already thought I was a burden to their lifestyles!

Instead, I told them that the “circle of life” includes caring for each other at all ages and stages. Such caring also eliminates future guilt and leaves a sense of pride that we did the best we could for each other during our lives.

When my mother developed Alzheimer’s in the late 1980s (and later terminal thyroid cancer), a friend asked if I was going to feed her. At the time, my mother was fully mobile and able to get ice cream out of the freezer and eat it. I was shocked and offended.

“Do you want me to tackle her?!” I asked my friend.

“Oh, no!”, he answered, “I was talking about a feeding tube later on.”

I told him that my mother would die of her disease, not from deliberate starvation and dehydration.

Near the end of her life, we did spoon feed my mother and she enjoyed it very much before dying peacefully in her sleep.

For decades now, I have enjoyed caring for many people with Alzheimer’s or other dementias both personally and professionally but I remain alarmed by the all too common attitude that people with Alzheimer’s “need to die” either by VSED or physician-assisted suicide.

I am pleased with the Alzheimer’s Association’s decision to end its agreement with Compassion and Choices.

Canada and the Euthanasia Endgame

nancyvalko assisted suicide, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, Living wills, medical ethics, pro-life

Several nations like Belgium and the Netherlands have had legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, even for minors and for people just “tired of life” But now the worst is Canada which legally approved MAiD (medical aid in dying) it in 2016, according to Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg quotes Kevin Yuill, a professor who spoke at the Euthanasia Symposium in Brussel in November who said:

“Canada has the dubious honour of being the global capital of euthanasia. Through its medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme, Canada killed more people with lethal injections last year than any other country on Earth – many of them poor, homeless or hopeless. And soon, from March 2023, lethal injections will be offered to anyone who judges their mental-health difficulties to be intolerable.”

Even worse, some people with disabilities are saying that they are being pressured to take a lethal overdose.

In a November 2022 UK article titled “Canadian man alleges hospital is pressuring him to end his life by assisted suicide”, a man with a disease affecting his brain and muscles is suing his Canadian hospital after secretly recording the hospital staff, stating:

“They asked if I want an assisted death. I don’t. I was told that I would be charged $1,800 per day [for hospital care]. I have $2 million worth of bills. Nurses here told me that I should end my life. That shocked me”.

Mr. Foley has applied for “direct funding” from the Canadian government to “employ agency workers of his own choosing and manage his schedule”.

  

The article also cited “a pro-assisted suicide and euthanasia group of doctors in Canada have recently said that doctors have a “professional obligation” to initiate discussion of assisted suicide and euthanasia with patients who might fit the legal criteria. They claim there is nothing in Canadian law which forbids this.”

CANADIAN STATISTICS

The UK article also notes that:

“In 2021, 10,064 people ended their lives by assisted suicide and euthanasia, an increase of over 32% from the previous year, accounting for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada.

According to the latest report on Medical Assistance in Dying from Health Canada, 17.3% of people also cited “isolation or loneliness” as a reason for wanting to die. In 35.7% of cases, patients believed that they were a “burden on family, friends or caregivers”. (Emphasis added)

Canada was set to approve MAiD for people with mental illness but recently, the Canadian government announced its plan to temporarily delay MAiD eligibility  for people whose sole medical condition is mental illness.

CONCLUSION

In 1993, just 3 years after Nancy Cruzan, a woman in a so-called “vegetative state” died a long 12 days after her feeding tube was removed in my home state of Missouri, a letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a prominent ethicist and one of the future architects of Obamacare, acknowledged that the actual proof purported to show that the Cruzan case met Missouri law requiring “clear and convincing evidence” that Ms. Cruzan would not want to live in a so-called “vegetative” state rested only on “fairly vague and insubstantial comments to other people”.

Ominously, he also noted that:

“..increasingly it will be our collective determination as to what lives are worth living that will decide how incompetent patients are treated. We need to begin to articulate and justify these collective determinations.” (Emphasis added.)

“(O)ur collective determination as to what lives are worth living” is the very real and frightening potential endgame of legalized euthanasia and it should be stopped now!

How Accurate Is Prenatal Testing?

nancyvalko abortion, disability, hospice, law, medical, medical ethics, palliative care, terminal/palliative sedation

I have written about the alleged accuracy of prenatal blood testing before as both a nurse and a mother in my blog “A Dark Side of Prenatal Testing” and “Two Wonderful Stories: A Prenatal Misdiagnosis; Man Saves Grandchild from Abortion”.

Now, ProPublica, a self-described nonprofit investigative newsroom, just published an article titled “They Trusted Their Prenatal Test. They Didn’t Know the Industry Is an Unregulated “Wild West.”

The authors tell the story of a mother who had an in vitro diagnostic test (IDT) that came back negative, meaning her baby did not have the serious conditions that were tested for.

However, when the mom delivered her daughter, the baby had serious problems and only lived 28 hours.

The autopsy showed that the baby had an extra 13th chromosome, a condition that was part of the testing. The chances that the baby would have not have this or two other serious conditions was “greater than 99%.”

The test was a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies but the mother, a science researcher, read academic articles showing a higher risk of inaccurate results than she realized.

The mom found other women reporting problems with the tests also so she tried contacting the company that made the test, hoping she would help other families.

She was unsuccessful.

She found out that if she had taken other common commercial tests like some for Covid-19 or pregnancy, the company would have had to inform the US Food and Drug Administration about “reports of so-called adverse events.”

The mom found out that the test she took fell into a regulatory void:

“No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong — sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.”

The stakes are high for families with the article stating:

 “Upwards of half of all pregnant people (sic) now receive one of these prenatal screenings.”

And that the companies stress that “ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.”

CONCLUSION

When I had my last child in 1985, I was offered but refused amniocentesis. In my case, it was offered because I had previously had Karen, my daughter with Down Syndrome.

Some people asked if I was brave or stupid. I told them that I was just well-informed after researching both amniocentesis and CVS.

I knew that both procedures carry a risk of miscarriage and that I would never abort a child because of a disability. I also knew that such procedures can only test for some of the thousands of known “birth defects” and I personally met families who were erroneously told that their child had a defect but were born healthy.

After that, I was remarkably worry-free during my last pregnancy and delivered a healthy girl.

But maternity care has changed a lot since 1985, especially since the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) now states that Abortion is Healthcare Abortion is Healthcare | ACOG

But despite the possible inaccuracies of prenatal test, there is help if a baby is diagnosed with an unexpected condition like Down Syndrome or Trisomy 13.

Thankfully, there are even programs like Perinatal Hospice & Palliative Care: Continuing Your Pregnancy that can help in the event of a prenatal diagnosis that indicates a baby may die before or after birth.

Where there is love, there is always hope!

What Will It Take? Part Two -Does Abortion Really Help Women?

nancyvalko abortion, bereavement, culture, hospice, law, media, medical ethics, mental health, Planned Parenthood, prenatal testing, pro-life

In August 2019, I wrote a blog titled “Pro-abortion Desperation in Missouri” about the last Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Missouri losing its license because of numerous health and safety violations but continued to operate only because of several temporary injunctions by a judge.

The clinic finally closed only after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returned abortion law to the states.

Unfortunately, the pro-abortion choice response to that decision has resulted in terrible turmoil and animosity.

Now the attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches with few arrests and prosecution of peaceful pro-life demonstrators are continuing unabated.

To try to portray abortion as a positive empowerment for women, Planned Parenthood has tried the “Share Your Story” and “Shout Your Abortion— Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality” campaigns to increase abortion support and activism. (The National Association of Pro-life Nurses countered with “Shout out Your Adoption!“, pointing out that “Adoption is a wonderful act of love and one of the best alternatives to abortion.”)

Now Planned Parenthood has another strategy for increasing abortion support and activism originally published in MS Magazine on 4/12/2022 and titled “A Firsthand View of the Crisis Ahead for Abortion Rights—and What We Should Do About It”

The article states:

“Since it seems we can no longer rely on the courts to protect these rights, our only solution is to pass a new federal law that will protect abortion rights in all 50 states. The Senate’s recent failure to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act makes it clear that we will need a greater pro-choice majority than we have today to pass this new legislation.

This will not happen in one election cycle, and it will take a commitment of time, energy and resources beyond that which we have been expending to date. We have to get all the voters who support reproductive rights registered and encourage them to vote. We have to elect representatives at all levels of government who will protect our reproductive rights that are currently under attack. (Emphasis in original)

THE TRAUMA OF ABORTION

And as a nurse, I have seen the mental and/or physical trauma after abortion in both friends and patients.

For example, one friend felt she had to have an abortion because the doctor said her unborn baby had little or no brain, which may not have even been true according to the doctor I knew who read the ultrasound. That doctor was devastated to learn that an abortion was done.

Knowing that I was pro-life, my friend said she didn’t want to talk about the traumatic 28 hour induced abortion but, after 5 years, she called me and said she needed to know how the hospital disposed of the body. She also revealed that she secretly hung an ornament for that baby on the Christmas tree every year.

And I wrote a November 2016 blog “Why Talk About Abortion” about one of my elderly hospice patients who told me that she was afraid to die because of a secret abortion she had 60 years ago because she believed that abortion was an “unforgivable sin” and she would go to hell. She also felt her now swollen belly due to her terminal condition was God punishing her for the abortion.

My heart went out to this woman who was suffering so much, more emotionally than even physically.

We talked for a long time and in a later visit about God’s love and forgiveness. I told her about Project Rachel, a healing ministry for women (and even men) wounded by abortion. I gave her the phone number and offered to be with her to meet a counselor or priest, but she insisted that my talking with her was enough to help. I felt it wasn’t, but she seemed to achieve a level of peace and she even started smiling! 

Rose died comfortably and apparently in her sleep about a week later.

SOME RESOURCES TO HELP WOMEN WHO ARE CONSIDERING ABORTION OR OTHERS WHO ARE HURTING AFTER AN ABORTION

  1. Support After Abortion “aspires to shift the conversation to compassion and support for those impacted by abortion” (including men)
  2. Project Rachel for women and even including how to talk to a friend who has had an abortion
  3. Birthright An organization with many resources and help
  4.  American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists states it “Promotes Dignity for BOTH our Patients!”
  5. There are also organizations like Prenatal Partners for Life and Be Not Afraid that provide support, information, resources and encouragement for carrying to term with an adverse prenatal diagnosis.

6. CareNet helps find a crisis pregnancy center in your area

CONCLUSION

Serrin M. Foster of Feminists for Life in her 2018 National Review article “Women Deserve Better than Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women” perhaps said it best:

 “The reality is that there is no such thing as a safe abortion. Few unborn human beings escape a violent death, but what is underreported is the mortality of healthy pregnant women killed during or as a result of abortion.

When we know how much a woman grieves from reproductive loss through miscarriage or stillbirth, who would choose abortion? According to the Guttmacher Institute, those who have abortions come primarily from the poorest among us (75 percent), women of color (61 percent), women pursuing post-secondary degrees that would lift them out of poverty (66 percent), and mothers who already have dependents (59 percent). Half of all abortions are performed on a woman who has already had one or more abortions, proving that abortion solves nothing. Abortion isn’t empowering, and it’s not something to celebrate. Abortion is a symptom of, not a solution to, the problems faced overwhelmingly by women who don’t have what they need and deserve. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better.”

And ALL of us deserve a better and more peaceful society!

What Will It Take?

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, brain injury, Compassion & Choices, culture, disability, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

I recently wrote a blog titled “The War Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers Escalates” about the attacks on crisis pregnancy centers after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returning abortion law to the individual states was outrageously leaked.

 Now that the final Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision  is public, the violence against crisis pregnancy centers and churches has continued with few if any arrests.

However, now even pro-life individuals have been targeted.

For example, an 84-year-old pro-life volunteer was shot on Sept. 20 while going door-to-door in her community to talk about a ballot measure concerning abortion in Michigan. Thankfully, she is expected to recover.

Even more disturbing and over the last weekend, was the news that the FBI raided the home of a pro-life advocate Mark Houck and arrested him in front of his 7 crying children for the alleged crime of “Assaulting a Reproductive Health Care Provider”.

According to the National Review, Mrs. Houck “described an incident in which her husband ‘shoved’ a pro-abortion man away from his 12-year-old son after the man entered ‘the son’s personal space’ and refused to stop hurling ‘crude… inappropriate and disgusting’ comments at the Houcks.” The man did not sustain any injuries but did try to sue Houck. The charges were later dismissed.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO RESOLVE THE NATIONAL TURMOIL SURROUNDING ABORTION?

I was a young intensive care unit nurse when the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision came down in 1973. Like most people I knew, I was surprised and shocked when abortion was legalized. However, I quickly found that my medical colleagues were split on the issue, and I was vehemently attacked for being against abortion. I was even asked what I would do if I was raped and pregnant. When I replied that I would not have an abortion and would probably release the baby for adoption, I was ridiculed. Our formerly cohesive unit began to fray.

But I was professionally offended by the pro-life argument that legalizing abortion would lead to the legalization of infanticide and euthanasia.  

It was one thing to deny the truth with an early and unobserved unborn baby, but it was quite another to imagine any doctor or nurse looking at a born human being and killing him or her.

But I was wrong.

As I wrote in my 2019 blog “Roe v. Wade’s Disastrous Impact on Medical Ethics”, personal and professional experiences opened my eyes to the truth.

I have seen the push for “choice” to expand to abortion for any reason up to birth, infanticide and medical discrimination against people with disabilities, including my own daughter who had Down Syndrome.

I wasn’t long until “choice” also became the heart of the “right to die” movement to include to include legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia, withdrawal of feedings from people with serious brain injuries whose “choice” was exercised by family members or doctors and even the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (called VSED by the pro-death-choice group Compassion and Choices).

With VSED, Compassion & Choices maintains that:

“Many people struggle with the unrelieved suffering of a chronic or incurable and progressive disorder. Others may decide that they are simply “done” after eight or nine decades of a fully lived life. Free will and the ability to choose are cornerstones of maintaining one’s quality of life and dignity in their final days”.  (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have long preferred the term “respect life” to “anti-abortion” because obviously we should respect the lives of all people at any age or stage of development.

But this doesn’t mean anger or vilification of others.

Over the years I have written, spoken, debated, etc. people who do not agree with the respect life philosophy, but I never became angry.

I also found that listening to and not judging others-especially people in crisis-was crucially important.

For example and many years ago, I ran into an acquaintance I will call Diane and I congratulated her on her obvious pregnancy.

I was stunned when she replied, “Don’t congratulate me yet. I might not be pregnant.”

Diane, the mother of a 5-year-old boy, went on to explain that she was awaiting the results of an amniocentesis and said, “I know what you went through with your daughter but I can’t give up my life like that. If this (the baby) is Downs, it’s gone.”

I reassured her that the test would almost surely show that her baby was ok, but I added that if the results were not what she expected I would like her to call me. I promised that I would give her any help she needed throughout the pregnancy and that my husband and I or even another couple would be willing to adopt her baby. She was surprised, as I later found out, both by my reaction and the information about adoption.

Diane gave birth to a healthy baby girl a few months later and ran up to me to apologize for her comments, saying that she probably would not have had an abortion anyway. But I understood her terrible anxiety. Society itself seems to have a rather schizophrenic attitude towards children with disabilities. Special Olympics is considered inspirational but Down’s Syndrome is too often seen as a tragedy.

Whether it is abortion or legalized assisted suicide, we must be prepared to help desperate people either personally and/or referring them to a crisis pregnancy center or suicide hotline.

Every life deserves to be respected.

Pain, Choice, and Canada’s now “most permissive euthanasia legislation in the world”

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Cancer, Compassion & Choices, culture, dementia, disability, economics, end-of-life, euthanasia, hospice, law, medical ethics, mental health

In his excellent July 10, 2022 blog, Alex Schadenberg, chair of the International Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, reveals that now “Canada’s medical assistance in dying (Maid) law is the most permissive euthanasia legislation in the world”.

He says “Canada’s MAiD law currently allows suicide facilitation for persons with disabilities and is on track to expand in March 2023 to those living with mental illness. “ (Emphasis added)

How did assisted suicide/euthanasia laws get so far and so fast down the proverbial “slippery slope”?

In my December, 2016 blog “Pain and ‘Choice’”,  I wrote about how I saw the warning signs when I was a new nurse in 1969.

Here is my blog:

PAIN AND “CHOICE”

December 15, 2016 nancyvalko 

It was 1969 and I was fresh out of nursing school when I was assigned to a patient I will call “Jenny” who was thirty-two years old and imminently dying of cancer. She was curled up in her bed, sobbing in pain and even moaned “just kill me.” The small dose of Demerol I injected into her almost non-existent buttocks every four hours “as needed” was not helping. I reassured Jenny that I was immediately calling the doctor and we would get her more comfortable.

However, I was shocked when the doctor said no to increasing or changing her medication. He said that he didn’t want her to get addicted! I told him exactly what Jenny said and also that she was obviously very close to death so addiction would not be a problem. The doctor repeated his no and hung up on me.

I went to my head nurse and told her what happened, but she told me I had to follow the doctor’s order. Eventually, I went up the chain of command to the assistant director of nursing and finally the Chief of the Medical Staff. The verdict came down and I was threatened with immediate termination if I gave the next dose of Demerol even a few minutes early.

I refused to abandon Jenny so for the next two days before she died, I spent my time after my shift sitting with her for hours until she fell asleep. I gave her whatever food or drink she wanted. I stroked her back, held her hand and told stories and jokes. I asked her about her life. I did everything I could think of to distract her from her pain and make her feel better. It seemed to help, although not enough for me. I cried for Jenny all the way home.

And I was angry. I resolved that I would never watch a patient needlessly suffer like that again.

So, I educated myself by reading everything I could about pain medicine and side effects. I also pestered doctors who were great at pain control to teach me about the management, precautions, and rationale of effective pain management. I used that knowledge to advocate and help manage my patients’ pain as well as educating others.

I was delighted to see pain management become a major priority in healthcare and even called “the fifth vital sign” to be evaluated on every patient. I saw new developments like nerve blocks, new drugs, and regimens to control pain and other techniques evolve as well as other measures to control symptoms like nausea, breathlessness, and anxiety. Now we also have nutritional, psychological, and other support for people with terminal illnesses and their families.

Best of all was that I never again saw another patient suffer like Jenny despite my working in areas such as ICU, oncology (cancer) and hospice.

TWENTY-FOUR YEARS LATER

When my oldest daughter was 14, she attended a public high school where the science teacher unexpectedly started praising the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his public campaign for legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Kevorkian’s first reported victim was Janet Adkins, a 54 year old woman with Alzheimer’s in no reported physical pain who was hooked up to a  “death machine” in the back of a rusty van. Mrs. Adkins was just the first of as many as 130 Kevorkian victims, many if not most of whom were later found to have no terminal illness. Kevorkian escaped prosecution-even after he harvested a victim’s organs and offered them for transplant-until the TV show 60 Minutes aired Kevorkian’s videotape showing him giving a lethal injection to a man with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). Shockingly, Kevorkian served only 8 years in prison before he was paroled and eventually became a media celebrity peddling assisted suicide and euthanasia.

My daughter, who never before showed any interest in my speaking and writing on the topic of assisted suicide, now stood up and peppered her teacher with facts about Kevorkian. The teacher asked her where she learned her information and she answered, “From my mom who is a cancer nurse”.

Sarcastically, he responded “So your mother wants to watch people suffer?” My daughter responded “No, my mother just refuses to kill her patients!” End of discussion.

CONCLUSION

But not the end of the story. Tragically, we now have legalized assisted suicide in several states and serious efforts  to expand it to include people without physical pain but with conditions like Alzheimer’s, mental illness or other psychological distress as well as even children.

As Wesley Smith recently and astutely observed:

 “Moreover, the statistics from Oregon and elsewhere show that very few people commit assisted suicide due to physical suffering. Rather, the issues are predominately existential, such as fears of being a burden or losing dignity

The public is being duped by groups like Compassion and Choices that campaign for legalized assisted suicide on the alleged basis of strict criteria for mentally competent, terminally ill adults in unbearable physical pain to freely choose physician-assisted suicide with (unenforceable) “safeguards”.

The emerging situation throughout the world is more like Kevorkian’s dream of unfettered and universal access to medical termination of the lives of “expendable” people. How much easier is that when people with expensive mental health problems, serious illnesses or disabilities can be encouraged to “choose” to be killed?

A Crisis Pregnancy Close to Home

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, culture, economics, family, law, pro-life, sex ed

A few days ago, I read an article from one of the medical news sites I subscribe to titled Would You Like to Keep This Pregnancy?’ I Asked My 13-Year-Old Patient–Having a choice can help end cycles of poverty among marginalized teen patients”.

Of course, the doctor/author was pro-abortion and the article was horrifying to me. I thought how differently a pro-life healthcare provider would handle the situation and remembered a news article I wrote in March, 1998 for the National Catholic Register newspaper.

Here is the news article:

“A Crisis Pregnancy Close to Home“

When it’s your own unmarried teenage daughter facing a staggering ‘choice,’ are you still pro-life?

“Mom, I’m pregnant.” When these words are uttered by your unmarried teenage daughter, it’s a heart-stopping moment for any parent. When the parent is a committed pro-lifer, the shock is often overlaid with stunned disbelief, shame, and guilt. “Hasn’t she been listening? This isn’t supposed to happen to my daughter!” and “How did I fail her?” are common first reactions. I know.

This Christmas, my 18-year-old daughter quietly told me that two at-home pregnancy tests came out positive.

Marie, named after the Blessed Mother, had long been my “worry child.” A brittle crust of teen rebellion had long covered a soft, sensitive heart, leading to a constant round of minor and not-so-minor infractions and arguments. Lately, though, her life seemed to be coming together. A“B” average at college and a job she loved lulled me into a sense that the worst was over. She confided that she thought she was falling in love and we talked about the pressures and temptations such strong emotions bring. Street-wise and assertive, I thought she was “safe.” But, as countless other parents have also discovered, my child lives in a world that too often considers virginity a disability and chastity an old-fashioned ideal.

The one bright spot in that night of tears and fears was that abortion was never considered an option by Marie: “Mom, I couldn’t kill my baby!” Although I was heartbroken by the circumstances of this pregnancy, I couldn’t help but feel proud of her for having the courage and common sense to reject the abortion “option.”

Surprisingly, she said all her friends were against her having an abortion and a few who had been leaning “pro-choice” were now rethinking their position. Two of her friends actually threatened to physically stop her from having an abortion even before she told them that she would never abort.

We didn’t resolve everything that first night or even later. Adoption or keeping the baby is still the big question and one that will involve a lot of prayer, thought, and discussion. It hasn’t been easy, but facing this crisis together has taught both of us so much already. What the future holds for Marie and her baby is uncertain but, with prayer and love, it is still a future bright with promise for both of them.

A Common Stereotype

A January 1998 New York Times article, “Many Women Make No Link Between Abortion and Politics,” perpetuates a common stereotype-the pro-lifer who chooses abortion when a crisis pregnancy hits home. Writer Tamar Lewin states, “Almost every abortion-clinic counselor can reel off stories of patients who say that they have always opposed abortion but that their own situation is different, or men who bring their pregnant wives or teenage daughters to the very same clinics that they have long spoken out against.”

But conversations with people active in the pro-life movement reveal a very different picture. Not surprisingly, pro-life people willing to help total strangers with a crisis pregnancy are also ready to help and support their own sons and daughters facing the same crisis.

“You think it’s the blackest day in your life when your daughter tells you she’s pregnant,” Lucy R., long active in the pro-life movement, says. A smile lights her voice. “But it’s really the beginning of a great blessing. That little boy (now six years old) is the light of our lives.” She credits prayer and pro-life principles for that happy ending.

Janet B. was a young professional when her sister told her that she had had an abortion without their parents’ knowledge because although their mother and father were strongly pro-life, the sister was sure they “just couldn’t take it (an unwed pregnancy).”

When Janet herself became pregnant out of wedlock, her parents became her biggest supporters. “We became so much closer,” she says. “My sister was wrong.” Interviews with pro-life supporters around the country reveal that this kind of family support during a crisis pregnancy appears to be the norm, not the exception.

Marcia Buterin RN, founder of Missouri Nurses for Life and active in the pro-life movement for 25 years, has had broad experience with pro-life parents whose daughters or sons have had crisis pregnancies. “It almost seems like an epidemic sometimes,” she says. “Pro-lifers are not immune from what is happening in the rest of society.”

But, she says, the reaction of the parents she has known has been invariably positive despite the heartache at discovering a son or daughter has been sexually active. She also says that, in the vast majority of cases, the young women keep their babies rather than releasing them for adoption. This echoes statistics which show that more than 90% of unmarried mothers keep their babies, almost the opposite situation of a generation ago when most of these mothers chose adoption. Thus, pro-lifers are not only supporting their daughters and sons during their pregnancies but also are usually involved in helping to raise their grandchildren.

Waning Support for Abortion

Not only do pro-lifers appear to routinely reject abortion for their unmarried children, society seems to be slowly starting to change its attitude toward abortion and the unmarried. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, not only has support for abortion-on-demand eroded by an estimated 8% since 1989, but public support for abortion when pregnancy threatens to interrupt a woman’s career or education has also dropped 14% and 8% respectively.

A clear majority of the people polled did not feel these circumstances justified abortion. Undermining a basic abortion rights tenet that familiarity with abortion increases public acceptance, the same poll showed that “personal experience” was twice as likely to be given as a reason for becoming less favorable towards abortion rather than more supportive of abortion.

At the same time, a new wave of pro-life sentiment appears to be rising in a most unexpected place-the young people who have grown up under the shadow of Roe. The Times/CBS News poll showed even less support for abortion on demand among 18-29 year olds (29%) than among the general public (32%). The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, has noted that “in recent years, fewer pregnant teens have chosen to have an abortion.” Even the media is beginning to notice. In a Jan. 21 New York Times article “A New Generation Rising Against Abortion,” writer Laurie Goodstein interviewed an eclectic group of young people attending a Rock for Life concert and found thoughtful and strong pro-life support even among those sporting tattoos and punk-style clothing.

Some explained that they began considering the value of life after losing friends to suicide, drug overdoses, and automobile accidents.

Goodstein also noted that many of the concert-goers she interviewed said that they arrived at a “right to life” position on their own and that, to be consistent, they also opposed the death penalty and assisted suicide and supported abstinence.

Countering Rock for Choice and other groups which help raise money for abortion rights groups, Rock for Life is a relatively recent phenomenon which reaches young people through the potent medium of music. Concert organizer Bryan Kemper told Goodstein that 15 concerts have already been staged and that there have been 110 bands “willing to perform for gas money.” Rock for Life is not the only sign that the pro-life movement is connecting with a new generation. Teens for Life, started in 1985, is a national organization run by young people encouraging teens to speak up for life and get involved in community activities. It has chapters throughout the country and continues to grow in numbers.

Another positive sign is the increasing number of pro-life groups springing up on college campuses. And not just on religiously-affiliated college campuses. MIT, Princeton, and the University of Texas are among colleges which not only have pro-life groups but also have websites on the Internet.

What Helps, What Hurts

But trends and statistics do not meet the needs of the individual young woman and her family suddenly facing a crisis pregnancy. The first reactions of parents and others to the news is extremely important to the woman and can even make the life-or-death difference for the unborn baby. When the first reaction is anger or a stern lecture about premarital sex, the young woman can feel abandoned and, in her despair, decide that eliminating the baby will make everyone feel better.

Parents and friends of young men and women coping with an unwed pregnancy are often unsure of what to say or how to handle the situation. One newer resource developed to help with this problem is a video and pamphlet called First Words: Can Our First Reaction to an Unplanned Pregnancy Save a Child’s Life? produced by American Life League.

The video tells the stories of four young women who faced an unwed pregnancy and encountered a range of reactions from friends and family. In their own words, these young women share how these reactions influenced their decisions about whether or not to abort their babies. The pamphlet is written by Cathy Brown who candidly tells her own story and offers helpful advice to parents and others.

But deciding against abortion is only the first step in a crisis pregnancy. The decision about whether to keep the baby or release him/her for adoption is often the most agonizing question for a young woman. Questions about insurance coverage and prenatal care, maintaining or losing a relationship with the father, the reactions of other children in the family, etc. are some of the practical and immediate concerns. Birthright and other pro-life pregnancy counseling centers can be a big help to families struggling with a crisis pregnancy.

Members of the family’s church can also help provide much needed spiritual and emotional support as well as involving the community in the nurturing of a new life.

For parents, especially pro-life parents, embarrassment and feelings of failure are common and understandable. It’s hard to put aside such feelings and concentrate on the feelings and needs of a son or daughter. But, as Donna B., a long-time pro-life activist and herself the mother of a pregnant teen, says, “Abortion is the real failure. It’s OK to be proud when your daughter chooses life.”

Nancy Valko writes from St. Louis, Mo.